The Vietnam War

Post Reply New Topic

Unless the US wanted to start a nuclear war with the soviets, which they didn't, so... no.

It doesn't have to be nuclear. If you destroy the cities, the dams and crops with conventional bombing, things go smoother. Japan was beaten with conventional bombing.

Beaten Up, not beaten. They did not surrender until the nukes were used on two of their cities.

ruveyn

They were arguing over surrender terms, but they were beaten in any realistic sense. They were using our bomb casings to make shovels to dig defenses.

If you can level Imperial Japan, you can level Vietnam. It's just a question of wanting to engage in total war. We chose not to.

Not so. They are beaten when they surrender or are all dead. They surrendered. If the government refused we would have had to kill over 80 percent of the population and that would have meant horrendous casualties to American troops.

Like Yogi Berra said: It ain't over until its over.

ruveyn

Well, we are extrapolating over a hypothetical so I'll think what I like and you think what you like.

They were divided in 1945. Six more months of massive bombing only makes a stronger case for surrender. They werent suddenly going to feel better about their cities going up in smoke.

Ultimately, victory in Europe was achieved by simple strength of numbers. The Germans had the best military machine of their time, but they were fighting a two front war in which they were squeezed between the United States coming to Britain's defense in the west, and the Soviets in the east. The Germans had found themselves up against two enemies with almost limitless manpower and resources. If Hitler could have kept up his lightening war, maybe the Wehrmacht could have run down the superior numbers of their enemies. But when they lost momentum, and ground to a standstill in the east, the Germans, with their finite number of soldiers and resources, were doomed.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Germany's industrial capacity was quite limited. In spite of all the clever technology they could not unleash the dogs of war as well as Detroit. What the U.S. lacked in technical superiority it made up in numbers. As V. I. Lenin once said: Quantity has a quality all of its own.

ruveyn

Lenin was spot on.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The Vietnamese have to be the toughest people on the planet.

They beat the French. They beat the Japanese. They beat the Americans. They beat the Chinese. They beat the Cambodians.

The Americans dropped more bombs on Vietnam than they did during all of World War II. They ruthlessly bombed, murdered, and laid waste to the country. Still, the Vietnamese were willing to live in tunnels, fight, and put up with the napalm.

How can you win against people like that?

Simple you cant because America doesnt use guerrilla warfare tactics we should though.

As my Hero Malcolm X once said.

By any means necessary had we used the same tatics as the enemy we might have stood a chance of winning the war.

The Afghans have an even better track record. So far as I am aware, the last invader to successfully conquer Afghanistan was Alexander.

Indeed Alexzander the great was a good leader unlike Napoleon Bonaparte who thought he could conquer Russia.

If its so simple then why do your own figures contradict that?

The trivial number of casualties you list for Russia and China show that those two countries were essentially noncombant nations who only gave material aid to the Vietnamese and not manpower.

Youve shown that in essence it was a war between the USA on one side (population 180 million at the time of the Tonkin Gulf incident), and North Vietnam on the other ( population 17 million), with the 16 million inhabitants of South Vietnam split in loyalty between the Saigon Government and the NLF and contributing fighters to both sides. With all of the North and maybe half of the South - the communist had most the Vietnamese on its side. But not most of the people.

In manpower we had an overwhelming superiority ( 180 plus 8 is alot more than 17 plus .

But Britain had 8 million people at the time of the American Revolution. The American colonies had only 3 million. Of that 3 million it was about a 3 way split between patriots, loyalists, and those who didnt give a damn either way. So Britain had the 8 million inhabitants of Britain plus one million loyal American colonists to draw manpower from- against only one million American "insurgents". And yet the insurgents won the worlds first "war of national liberation" the memory of which would inspire the 20th Centurey Vietnamese nationalist Ho Chi Minh to lead his own people against their French colonial masters in a protracted war that would gradually come to involve the USA.

Just to let you know, there had been plenty of wars of national liberation long before the American Revolution.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The Vietnam war showed what happens when we're there achieving a goal, then being told by Washington to take a hill - give it up - take it - give it up, and then once we've dealt with their hail mary bid (the Tet) we decide to tell our local allies "Don't worry - we'll cover you tank per tank when we pull out". Then from the helicopter ".........psych!! !!". They fought for at least three years - knowing that they'd all be executed - until surrender was forced in 1975. What came after that was a truly dark period, millions butchered who either did or were thought to have allied with us.

Moral of the story - if we stick our noses in and paint a target on locals - f^&* if we pull that kind of crap on them again.